Ethanol Subsidies

NEGATIVE BRIEF Daniel D’Alto
Ethanol Subsidies- Neg

Haines-Hendricks
INDEX
Strategy Notes
Topicality
1. Energy Policy is NOT Environmental Policy
Inherency
1. The subsidies only last through 2010

2. States are Abolishing the subsidies
3. Minnesota bills repeal ethanol subsidies
Harms/Significance
1. Subsidies don’t increase food prices
2. No Energy Deficit
Solvency
1. States Subsidize
Disadvantages
1. To Abolish, is to go against the people
2. Ethanol significantly reduces CO2 emissions & air pollution
3. Commodity Subsidies are worse
Page of 14
Strategy Notes
This brief is meant to be used in addition to the ethos brief, against cases that abolish
ethanol subsidies (specifically Haines/Hendricks).
The topicality argument is pretty self-explanatory, it doesn’t matter how two high- school
students chose to define environmental policy, because the federal government says
otherwise. (When we went against this case in March, we won on topicality)
Probably one of the strongest arguments in this brief is the one attacking the Affirmative
team’s harm of increased food price. I recommend using this section in replacement of
the ethos section, simply because of the sources in this brief are more reliable and a little
more recent. (Plus I wrote this one)
Although the energy deficit section in this brief is good I recommend adding a few cards
from the ethos brief.
The reason I didn’t touch upon the pollution and waste of taxpayer dollars is because
the ethos does a realy good job covering thoes sections.
The argument labeled as solvency, is meant to be used against the claim to solve the
damage caused by ethanol subsidies. Even if the aff abolishes federal subsidies, states can
continue to subsidize ethanol, so they can’t solve the problems it supposedly causes.
The first disadvantage is a time-filler that’s it. It’s an argument that’s appealing to the
judge and should take the affirmative team a while to refute.
The second DA is already really strong in the ethos brief, but I couldn’t help myself so I
put one piece in with a strong source.
I realize the last DA can be confusing (for those who haven’t gone against sustainable
agriculture) so I’ll explain it here as best as I can.
Currently there are two types of major farm subsidies, ethanol and commodity. The
second piece of evidence explains that farmers will go wherever the money is. So if there
isn’t an ethanol subsidy farmers will go to the commodity subsidies. The rest of the DA
shows the major environmental impacts of commodity subsidies which are: A. Hypoxic
Zones, B. Increase Chemical use, and C. crops often depend on pesticides, which are
toxic to insects, plants, and other wildlife and contaminate drinking water
I also highly recommend the other DA’s used in the ethos brief which, in my opinion
didn’t need anything added so I left them alone.
Page of 14
TOPICALITY
1. Ethanol subsidies fall under the category of Energy Policy not

Environmental Policy.
Link: They affirmative team is reforming energy policies.
Energy Policy Act of 2005

http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf [DD]
“Renewable Fuels Standard. Gasoline sold in the United States must contain an
increasing amount of renewable fuel, such as ethanol or biodiesel. Motor fuels must
contain at least 4.0 billion gallons of renewables in 2006, a level that increases by
700 million gallons each year through 2011 before reaching a level of 7.5 billion gallons
in 2012.”
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [DD]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6
“The DOE (Department of Energy) is directed to create a grant” (subsidy) “program to

help establish or convert infrastructure to use renewable fuels, including E85 (85%
ethanol).”
Impact: They’re reforming the Energy Policies, which aren’t Environmental policies,
thus it doesn’t matter how they define environmental policy, because the government
categorizes ethanol mandates under ENERGY POLICIES.
Page of 14
INHERENCY
1. The Subsidies only last through 2010
Energy Policy Act of 2005

http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf [DD]
“CONDITION OF GRANT.—To be eligible for a grant for a project under this

section, a recipient of a grant or a participating entity shall agree to use the material
harvested under the project—
(1) to produce ethanol; or
(2) for another energy purpose, such as the generation
of heat or electricity.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 2006 through 2010.”
Impact: No action is needed it’s about to happen anyway.
2. People are trying to abolish the subsidies
Press release, 2009 (This was released on Rep. Joseph Crowley’s website. The plan was
introduced by, US Representatives Joseph Crowley and Mary Bono Mack, a bipartisan coalition of
members) http://crowley.house.gov/list/press/ny07_crowley/AffordableFoodandFuel.shtml [DD]
“The Affordable Food and Fuel for America Act (H.R. 3187) will phase out a $5
billion-a-year subsidy for gasoline refiners who blend corn ethanol into gasoline,
eliminate a tariff on imported biofuels, and increase funding for the cellulosic biofuel
production tax credit.”
3. Minnesota bills repeal ethanol subsidies
Erin Voegele Ethanol Producer Magazine 2009, “Minnesota bills repeal ethanol subsidies”
( Ethanol Producer Magazine is In its 11th year of publication, Ethanol Producer Magazine is the oldest,
largest and most read trade publication in the ethanol industry. Published by BBI International Media,
Ethanol Producer Magazine is the source for in depth ethanol industry news. Adding value to the biofuels
industry, BBI International provides unmatched services to the biofuels industry including project
development services, conference and meeting planning, publications and recruiting. Minnesota House
Bill HF0311, authored by Rep. Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, Minn., and Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester,
Minn., would repeal Minnesota’s ethanol producer payment program and the minimum ethanol content
requirement.) http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=5402 [DD]
“Three legislative bills currently pending in the Minnesota Legislature have the
potential to severely impact the state’s ethanol industry. Two of the bills would repeal
both the state’s ethanol producer payment program, also known as ethanol subsidy
program, and the state’s minimum ethanol content requirement, more commonly known
as the state’s renewable fuels standard. A third bill would repeal just the ethanol producer
payment program.”
Page of 14
SIGNIFICANCE - Doesn’t Increase Food Prices

1. Turn: Ethanol doesn’t dramatically increase food prices.
2. The increase was due to other factors
3. Other Factors were the cause of price rise
4. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices
5. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices (extended)
6. Turn: Lower price of corn
7. Increased Corn yields
1. Turn: Ethanol doesn’t dramatically increase food prices
Congretional Budget Office 2009 “The Impact Of Ethanol Use On Food Prices And
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions” (CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with: Objective, nonpartisan, and
timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the
federal budget and the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf [DD]
“From April 2007 to April 2008, the increasing demand for corn to produce
ethanol contributed, in CBO’s estimation, between 0.5 and 0.8 percentage points to the
5.1 percent increase in the price of food overall as measured by the component of the
consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) that measures food prices.”
2. The increase was due to other factors.
Congretional Budget Office 2009 “The Impact Of Ethanol Use On Food Prices And
Greenhouse-Gas Emissions” (CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with: Objective, nonpartisan, and
timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the
federal budget and the information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf [DD]
The CBO stated several factors contributed to the increase of food prices
including “Concerns about a poor harvest because of unfavorable weather for spring
planting caused corn prices to rise during the spring of 2008.” it then goes on to say that
the “Growing global demand for meat increased the demand for animal feed.”
Impact: Since the Subsidies weren’t the cause of the increased prices there is no need to
get rid of them for that reason
Page of 14
3. Other Factors were the cause of price rise
Rick Tolman December 2009 “Ethanol Demand Doesn’t Raise Food Prices” (is chief
executive officer of the National Corn Growers Association. He is a graduate of Brigham Young University
and received his master's degree in agricultural economics from Purdue University. Tolman has served on
the USDA Agricultural Trade Advisory Committee (ATAC))
http://www.iowafarmertoday.com/articles/2010/04/05/letters_-_commentary/ethonal_op1212.txt [DD]
“As profit margins continue to rebound, it is time for the public to recognize the ethanol
industry and the family farmers who support it are not responsible for rising food costs.
Instead, they should realize the factors, such as labor, transportation and increased profit
margins, which have affected food prices over the past year.”
4. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices
Connie Hardy 2009 “Ethanol Industry Profile” (content specialist, Agricultural Marketing
Resource Center, Iowa State University: She quoted these sources for her study: Renewable Fuels
Association, 2009.Economic Research Service, USDA, U.S. Department of Energy.)
http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/energy/ethanol_profile.cfm [DD]
“Although competitive ethanol production is dependent on an ample and affordable

supply of grain, it is important to note that ethanol prices historically follow gasoline
prices rather than corn prices.”
5. Increased Corn Yields

“Yield growth alone will provide more than 520 million bu. of additional feedstock
required by the ethanol industry in 2009/2010. Even after the new corn demand for
ethanol production is met, there will be 187 million bu. resulting exclusively from yield
6. Turn: Lower price of corn
“As commodity prices have fallen, demand for corn-based ethanol has soared. Demand
for corn to produce ethanol has increased to 4.2 billion bu. in 2009 from 3.7 billion bu. in
2008, a 13.5 percent increase. At the same time, corn prices have decreased by roughly
20 percent. Simply, demand for corn used in ethanol production continues to increase
while corn prices fell. Increased yields make this possible.”
Page of 14
7. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices (extended)
Ray Hansen May 2004 (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, Iowa St. Univ.,
“Ethanol Industry Profile”)
“Although competitive ethanol production is dependent on an ample and affordable

supply of grain, it is important to note that ethanol prices aren’t reflective of corn prices,
they in fact more closely follow fuel prices. Because there is no correlation between corn
and ethanol prices it is important for investors to remember that they are dealing with two
related but independent commodities.”
growth that is available for livestock, feed, export and other domestic uses. Increased
yields allow U.S. farmers to grow enough corn to meet food, feed and fuel demands in an
economically and environmentally responsible manner.”
Page of 14
SIGNIFICANCE - No Energy Deficit

1. Ethanol produces more energy than it consumes
2. Ethanol is more efficient then gasoline
3. Efficiency problems have been solved by new technology
1. Ethanol produces more energy then it consumes
Renewable Fuels Association, October 2008 “Ethanol Facts: Environment,” (Organized

in 1981, RFA serves as the voice of the ethanol industry, providing advocacy, authoritative analysis, and
important industry data to its members, Congress, federal and state government agencies, strategic partners
and the media: They quote a study done by the 2004 U.S. Department of Agriculture for the 67% statistic)
http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001261 [DD]
“Whether produced from corn or other biomass feedstocks, ethanol generates more
energy than used during production. Plants used in ethanol production harness the power
of the sun to grow. By releasing the energy stored in corn and other feedstocks, ethanol
production utilizes solar energy, replacing fossil energy use. A life cycle analysis of
ethanol production - from the field to the vehicle - found that ethanol has a large and
growing positive fossil energy balance. Ethanol yields 67% more fossil energy than is
used to grow and harvest the grain and process it into ethanol.”
2. More efficient then gasoline
Brett Hulsey 2006 “Cleaning The Air With Ethanol” (Masters in Natural Science from the
University of Oklahoma and a B.A. in Political Economy from Middlebury College. More than 30 years of
public service experience, including Environmental Policy Advisor to President Clinton and Energy
Conservation Advocate in the Carter Administration during the 1970's energy crisis, and a local official.
The study quoted was done by: the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and the U.S.
Department of Energy) http://www.betterenvironmentalsolutions.com/reports/EthanolToday.pdf [DD]
“The Argonne National Laboratory Ethanol Study shows that ethanol yields 20-60
percent more energy than it takes to produce it. The same study showed that gasoline is a
net energy loser, wasting 20 percent of its energy in drilling, transportation, and refining
losses.”
3. Efficiency problems have been solved by new technology
Christine C. Benson, Winter 2007 [J.D. candidate, The University of Iowa

College of Law], “Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: The Varied Success of Biofuel Incentive
Policies in the United States and the European Union,” Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, , (16
Transnat'l L. & Contemp. Probs. 633)[ethos]
“While, in the past, ethanol has not been efficient to produce, new technology has
eliminated this problem. The U.S. Department of Agriculture now estimates that ethanol
yields a 1.10 positive energy balance before accounting for energy produced by ethanol
co-products, and a 1.67 positive energy balance after accounting for energy produced by
ethanol co-products. Thus ethanol production now results in a net gain of energy and is
no longer an inefficient energy source due to improved technology.”
Page of 14
SOLVENCY – States Subsidize

1. Minnesota has its own subsidy program
2. South Dakota has its own subsidy program
3. North Dakota has its own subsidy program
4. Many states have their own ethanol subsidies that go beyond federal subsidies
1. Minnesota has its own subsidy program
Gregory McKee, Gary W. Brester, and Joel Schumacher 2010 “Economic

Impacts Of Eliminating State Ethanol Production Subsidies In The Upper Great Plains” (Gregory McKee:
Ph.D., Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, June, 2006 Fields of study:
Agricultural Economics, Environmental and Resource Economics), ( Gary W. Brester: Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Montana State University He received his Ph.D. in
Economics from North Carolina State University. ), and (Joel Schumacher: M.S., Applied Economics,
Montana State University and is an Associate Specialist for the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Economics, Montana State University) [DD]
http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/ethanol/economic_impacts_of_eliminating_state_ethanol_product
ion_subsidies_in_the_upper_great_plains.cfm
“Minnesota has 21 ethanol production facilities with a combined annual production

capacity of over 1 billion gallons. Minnesota provides ethanol producers a $0.20/gallon
subsidy for ethanol produced by facilities which were operational as of June 30, 2000.
Such facilities are eligible to receive subsidy payments for 10 years.”
2. South Dakota has its own subsidy program

“South Dakota has 15 ethanol production facilities with a total annual production
capacity of over 900 million gallons. The State offers a production incentive of
$0.20/gallon to ethanol producers. Ethanol blends below E85 are taxed at $0.20/gallon,
while E85 (or higher) blends are taxed at $0.10/gallon.”
Page of 14
3. North Dakota has its own subsidy program

“North Dakota has six ethanol facilities with a total annual production capacity of over
300 million gallons. The program consists of two parts. The first part reduces the price
of corn used by an ethanol plant by providing a $0.001/gallon subsidy for every one cent
that corn prices exceed a pre-established threshold price (currently $1.80 per bushel).
The second part of the program reduces this subsidy by $0.002/gallon if ethanol prices
exceed a pre-established threshold (currently $1.30 per gallon). Only facilities built after
July 1, 1995 are eligible, and total statewide program expenditures cannot exceed $1.6
million annually. North Dakota produced 233 million gallons of ethanol in 2008, and was
the 11th largest producing State.”
4. Many states have their own ethanol subsidies that go beyond federal subsidies
Wallace E. Tyner July/August, 2008 [professor of agricultural economics at Purdue

university, West Lafayette, Indiana], “The US Ethanol and Biofuels Boom: Its Origins, Current Status, and
Future Prospects,” BioScience, , (Vol. 58 Issue 7, pp. 646-653) [Ethos]
“There are other federal subsidies in addition to the blended fuel tax credit, as
well as state subsidies. Many states have complicated combinations of state subsidies,
renewable fuel standards, producer incentives, and so on. For example, the current
Minnesota producer tax credit is 5.3 cents per liter (20 cents per gallon) (Schumacher
2006). In fact, Koplow (2006) calculated the total subsidy available for ethanol in 2006 to
range between 27.8 and 36.5 cents per liter of ethanol ($ 1.05 and $1.38 per gallon) or
between 37.6 and 49.5 cents per liter of gasoline equivalent ($1.42 and $ 1.87 per gallon),
with the conversion from Kopiow based on fossil fuel displaced.”
Page of 14
DISADVANTAGES
DISAD LINK – To remove is to go against the American people

1. People support Ethanol
Link: Ethanol is dependent on subsidies & would be materially damaged by changes
Frank A. Seminerio Penn State International Law Review, Spring, 2008

[J.D. Candidate, The Dickinson School of Law of the Pennsylvania State University], “A Tale Of Two
Subsidies: How Federal Support Programs for Ethanol and Biodiesel Can be Created in Order to
Circumvent Fair Trade Challenges under World Trade Organization Rulings,”, (26 Penn St. Int'l L. Rev.
963) [ethos]
“Although some critics of biofuel subsidies argue that the industry can prosper
without governmental support, VeraSun Energy Corporation, one of the larger U.S.
ethanol producers, noted in its March 2006 filing statement with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that the "U.S. ethanol industry is highly dependent upon a myriad
of federal and state legislation and regulation and any changes in legislation or regulation
could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial position."”
Brink: The People Support Ethanol Production
David Binder Research Co. December 2009 (The survey of 1,000 U.S. voters
nationwide was conducted in mid‐September by David Binder Research and has a margin of error of 3.1
percent.) http://chooseethanol.com/news/entry/poll-most-people-support-ethanol/
“A survey in September of 1,000 registered voters nationwide sponsored by the National

Corn Growers Association found 65 percent of those polled support ethanol.”
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Public Opinion Strategies July 2008

(Between June 23 and July 1, the Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and the Republican
polling firm Public Opinion Strategies conducted a survey of 1,200 registered voters. The overall margin of
error for this survey is +/- 2.83. This survey was commissioned by the Renewable Fuels Association.)
http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Public_support_for_ethanol_RFA_poll_71508.pdf
A national poll conducted in 2008 found that “When asked if they favor or oppose
continuing to increase use of ethanol, an impressive 59 percent come out in favor, while
just 30 percent oppose.”
Impact: In a time of political turmoil, the last thing we need is to go against the
American people… Again.
Page of 14
DISAD IMPACT/SIGNIFICANCE – Reduces Global Warming
1. Ethanol significantly reduces CO2 emissions & air pollution
U.S. Department of energy (DOE) 07/10/2009, “Ethanol Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/emissions.html
“Studies have shown that, when these entire fuel cycles are considered, using corn-based
ethanol instead of gasoline reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 19% to 52%, depending
on the source of energy used during ethanol production.”
DISAD- Hypoxic Zones

Point A: Farmers Will Go Wherever the Money Is
William S. Eubanks 2009 William S. Eubanks II [Associate Attorney at the Washington D.C.
public interest environmental law firm of Meyer Glitzenstein & Crystal; co-authored a brief to the United
States Supreme Court the effects of military sonar on marine mammals; Environmental Law LL.M., summa
cum laude, Vermont Law School. LL.M. Clinical Intern at Conservation Law Foundation; Project
Coordinator at International Environmental Law Casebook Project; Legal Research Clerk at Southern
Environmental Law Center. He specializes in complex environmental law and litigation under the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Farm bill,
and other federal and state environmental statutes. He also specializes in environmental legal theory related
to sustainable agriculture, climate change, air and water pollution, and environmental justice.] Published by
3 different publications; The Stanford Environmental Law Journal [28 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 2009], The
Environmental Law Reporter [39 ELR 10509], and the Environmental Law Institute [2009], May 28, 2009,
“The Sustainable Farm Bill: A Proposal for Permanent Environmental Change”,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1410800 [JS]
“By moving away from corn and commodity crop subsidies in favor of paying farmers for employing some
of the sustainable agricultural methods enumerated above, Congress will foster a much more effective piece
of legislation that is more aligned with the original goals of the Farm Bill. As seen with our nation’s
massive corn production tied solely to subsidies, farmers will farm wherever the money
is.”
Point B: $20 Billion is given annually to farm subsidies
William S. Eubanks 2009

“Of the nearly $20 billion in annual Farm Bill subsidies, 84% currently go to the five
primary commodity crops of corn, cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat .214 Shifting a large
portion of these subsidies to farmers who implement sustainable farming practices would greatly impact the
market by bringing supermarket prices of sustainably farmed goods down while nudging supermarket
prices of foods based on industrially farmed corn and soybean up to more reasonable levels, i.e., prices that
more closely reflect the market prices that would appear in the absence of heavy Farm Bill subsidies. A
critical step would involve tapping into the knowledge of scientists, USDA agricultural experts, and
nonprofit advocates in order to set specific and concrete standards of what constitutes a sustainable
Page of 14
agricultural practice for purposes of receiving subsidies .215 Although this step would likely be
controversial, it is clear that such subsidies are needed to better protect the natural environment.”
Link: By eliminating ethanol subsidies farmers will switch to commodity subsidies.
Impact: Commodity Subsidies are worse for the environment
A: Hypoxic Zones
William S. Eubanks 2009
“The largest example of hypoxia in the United States is the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone,
which is now longer than the distance between Washington, D.C., and Hartford,
Connecticut. This dead zone is largely the result of commodity crop production and
fertilizer application in the Corn Belt of the United States near the Mississippi River and
other rivers that ultimately discharge into the Gulf of Mexico. Approximately two-thirds
of the nitrogen entering the Gulf comes from industrial agricultural practices in the form
of fertilizers or manure runoff. The USDA itself acknowledges the gravity of this problem and
recommends “including changes in the application and management of nitrogen fertilizer on farm fields.”
However, until such changes are put into practice, the impacts to the Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone
and others like it will continue to be astonishing: the aquatic ecosystems will be
devastated; local residents will have difficulty securing seafood for personal
consumption; and fishing communities will suffer as fish catches dwindle.”
B: Commodity Subsidies increase Chemical use
Jennifer Hoffpauir 2009 Jennifer Hoffpauir [J.D. Candidate, 2009, Georgetown University Law
Center; Senior Financial Analyst at Intel; Intern at Freescale Semiconductor; Underwriting Analyst I at
Texas Association of School Boards; Billing Analyst I at Texas Association of School Boards; Associate at
Scientific Placement; Texas A&M University - Mays Business School; Northwestern State University],
Fordham Environmental Law Review [20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 233], spring 2009, “The
Environmental Impact of Commodity Subsidies: NEPA and the Farm Bill,” [Accessed via Lexis-Nexis]
“Commodity programs also more directly contribute to higher use of farm chemicals. By
raising prices and reducing price variations in program crops, subsidies create higher
marginal revenues for inputs, thus motivating additional input use. For example,
compared with farmers who do not participate in commodity programs, corn farmers
receiving subsidies significantly increased herbicide use in all cropping sequences,
‘supporting the conventional view that commodity programs directly contribute to greater
herbicide use in corn production.’”
Page of 14
C: Commodity crops often depend on pesticides, which are toxic to insects, plants,
and other wildlife and contaminate drinking water
William Eubanks 2009

“Another problem with commercialized farming of commodity crops is the use, and often
overuse, of pesticides. With the Green Revolution, chemical pesticides became necessary for reaching the maximum
yields of hybridized crops. Pesticides, the general term for both insecticides and herbicides, are used to combat pests that commonly
disturb agricultural crops. There
are more than 1,600 pesticides currently available on the market,
some of which were developed “as nerve gases during the Second World War” and are
unsurprisingly very toxic to the insects and plants they target and have the “potential to
kill birds and other wildlife.” For years, “[t]he movement of pesticides into surface and
groundwater” has contaminated human drinking water and aquatic ecosystems. Further, “[t]he
sediments dredged from U.S. waterways are often so heavily contaminated with pesticides that there may be problems in disposing of
them on land.” Agricultural pesticide use has led to “loss of fish productivity in contaminated freshwater such as the Great Lakes,
losses of crustacea that provide human food in contaminated estuaries, and . . . decreased pollination” as bees and other pollinating
insects are accidentally killed by the pesticides. Thus, the environmental toll of heavy pesticide use is wreaking havoc on our nation’s
water resources and endangering our invaluable aquatic ecosystems.”
Page of 14

Ethanol Subsidies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ethanol Subsidies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEGATIVE BRIEF Daniel D’Alto

Ethanol Subsidies- Neg

1. The subsidies only last through 2010

1. Ethanol subsidies fall under the category of Energy Policy not

Link: They affirmative team is reforming energy policies.

Energy Policy Act of 2005

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 [DD]

“The DOE (Department of Energy) is directed to create a grant” (subsidy) “program to

1. The Subsidies only last through 2010

Energy Policy Act of 2005

“CONDITION OF GRANT.—To be eligible for a grant for a project under this

Impact: No action is needed it’s about to happen anyway.

2. People are trying to abolish the subsidies

3. Minnesota bills repeal ethanol subsidies

SIGNIFICANCE - Doesn’t Increase Food Prices

1. Turn: Ethanol doesn’t dramatically increase food prices

2. The increase was due to other factors.

3. Other Factors were the cause of price rise

4. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices

“Although competitive ethanol production is dependent on an ample and affordable

5. Increased Corn Yields

6. Turn: Lower price of corn

7. Corn prices aren’t a problem - ethanol follows fuel prices (extended)

“Although competitive ethanol production is dependent on an ample and affordable

SIGNIFICANCE - No Energy Deficit

1. Ethanol produces more energy then it consumes

Renewable Fuels Association, October 2008 “Ethanol Facts: Environment,” (Organized

2. More efficient then gasoline

3. Efficiency problems have been solved by new technology

Christine C. Benson, Winter 2007 [J.D. candidate, The University of Iowa

SOLVENCY – States Subsidize

1. Minnesota has its own subsidy program

Gregory McKee, Gary W. Brester, and Joel Schumacher 2010 “Economic

“Minnesota has 21 ethanol production facilities with a combined annual production

2. South Dakota has its own subsidy program

Gregory McKee, Gary W. Brester, and Joel Schumacher 2010 “Economic

3. North Dakota has its own subsidy program

Gregory McKee, Gary W. Brester, and Joel Schumacher 2010 “Economic

Wallace E. Tyner July/August, 2008 [professor of agricultural economics at Purdue

DISAD LINK – To remove is to go against the American people

Link: Ethanol is dependent on subsidies & would be materially damaged by changes

Frank A. Seminerio Penn State International Law Review, Spring, 2008

Brink: The People Support Ethanol Production

“A survey in September of 1,000 registered voters nationwide sponsored by the National

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and Public Opinion Strategies July 2008

DISAD IMPACT/SIGNIFICANCE – Reduces Global Warming

1. Ethanol significantly reduces CO2 emissions & air pollution

U.S. Department of energy (DOE) 07/10/2009, “Ethanol Greenhouse Gas Emissions”

DISAD- Hypoxic Zones

Point B: $20 Billion is given annually to farm subsidies

William S. Eubanks 2009

Link: By eliminating ethanol subsidies farmers will switch to commodity subsidies.

Impact: Commodity Subsidies are worse for the environment

William S. Eubanks 2009

B: Commodity Subsidies increase Chemical use

William Eubanks 2009

You might also like